Uncategorized
Amid criticism, Columbia University announces a new research center in Tel Aviv
(JTA) — Columbia University has announced that it will launch a “Global Center” in Tel Aviv amid dueling letters from faculty supporting and opposing the decision.
The university’s Global Centers act as hubs for local scholars and researchers to work with the New York City school’s faculty, students and alumni to study and address a range of local and global issues. The center in Tel Aviv will join 10 others across the globe.
The Tel Aviv Global Center will enable the university “to connect with individuals and institutions, as well as with the alumni community in Israel, drawing them closer to the ongoing life of the University,” Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger said in a statement Monday. He added that the center will focus on climate change, technology, entrepreneurship, arts, the humanities, biology, health and medicine.
Columbia already has ties to Tel Aviv through Tel Aviv University, with which it began a dual degree program in 2019, despite also facing faculty and student objections.
For decades, Columbia has been the site of heated debate among both faculty and students over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in the months leading up to the announcement, a group of Columbia faculty urged the school to halt plans for a center in Tel Aviv. In February, law professor Katherine Franke began circulating an open letter against the center, which as of Tuesday morning had received 95 faculty signatures, according to the Columbia Daily Spectator, a student publication.
The letter references accusations of Israeli human rights violations, as well as the policies of Israel’s governing coalition, which includes far-right parties and which has put forward a proposal for a judicial overhaul that has led to massive street protests and upheaval in the country.
“We are particularly concerned that Columbia University would take the bold step of opening a Global Center in Tel Aviv at this particular moment, with the newly seated government that is widely, if not almost universally, regarded as the most conservative, reactionary, right wing government in Israel’s history,” the letter reads. “For Columbia to preemptively invest in a new Global Center in Israel at the very moment when the domestic and international community is pulling away as part of a concerted and vehement objection to the new government’s policies would render Columbia not only an outlier, but a collaborator in those very policies.”
While the letter notes broadly that Global Centers have served as a “liberal academic footprint” in other countries with restrictive regimes, it does not reference the individual human rights records of any of the other countries where the centers are located. The 10 existing centers are in Amman, Jordan; Athens, Greece; Beijing; Istanbul; Mumbai, India; Nairobi, Kenya; Paris; Rio de Janeiro; Santiago, Chile and Tunis, Tunisia.
The letter also argues that Israel would ban Columbia alumni and affiliates based on their citizenship, identity and politics.
Franke herself was barred from Israel in 2018, along with attorney Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights, based on accusations that they supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, against Israel. Both denied the accusations at the time, according to Haaretz. Around that same time, according to an opinion column by Roger Cohen in The New York Times, Bollinger was in Israel to discuss plans for the Global Center.
The letter also notes “substantial concern about the power of donor money to direct major decisions, such as the establishment of this Global Center in Tel Aviv, in lieu of consultation with the faculty.” The letter does not name any specific donors or detail how the alleged donor pressure was deployed.
In response to the opposition letter, faculty supporters of the Tel Aviv Global Center composed their own statement. They argue that the centers are independent of their governments’ host countries and do not signal approval or disapproval of each country’s government.
“The decision to locate a center in all of these countries was never determined by political considerations, but rather to enhance Columbia as a global research university,” the statement reads. “For a country its size, Israel has an unusually rich infrastructure of universities and other scholarly, cultural, religious, scientific, technological, legal, and artistic resources that have intellectual connections to every school at Columbia University.”
The statement of support, signed by more than 170 full-time faculty, was written by political science professor Ester R. Fuchs; Nicholas Lemann, dean emeritus of the Columbia Journalism School; David M. Schizer, dean emeritus and professor at the Columbia Law School and law professor Matthew C. Waxman.
The supportive letter says that Israel has a better human rights record than other countries that host the university’s centers — such as China or Jordan — and adds that many signatories do not approve of Israel’s current government.
“One does not have to support the policies of the current government of Israel — and many of us do not — to recognize that singling out Israel in this way is unjustified,” the letter says. “To apply a separate standard to Israel — and Israel alone — would understandably be perceived by many as a form of discrimination.”
—
The post Amid criticism, Columbia University announces a new research center in Tel Aviv appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Belgium Reverses Decision to Cut Federal Security in Antwerp’s Jewish District Amid Community Outcry
Police officers on patrol in the Belgian city of Antwerp. Photo: Reuters / Nicolas Maeterlink
After facing strong opposition from public officials and the local Jewish community over plans to withdraw federal security in Antwerp’s Jewish district, the Belgian government announced it will maintain current security measures, keeping federal police deployed for the time being.
Belgian Interior Minister Bernard Quintin announced on Thursday that federal officers will remain deployed in the district, reversing an earlier government plan to cut the police presence there by roughly half. The reversal followed Quintin’s meeting with representatives of Antwerp’s Jewish community
Avec des représentants de la communauté juive d’#Anvers.
Leur sécurité est une priorité absolue: les dispositifs actuellement en place sont maintenus.
Je souhaite les renforcer par la présence de #militaires et espère que cette mesure pourra aboutir dans les heures à venir. pic.twitter.com/ODKh8sjMZ6
— Bernard Quintin (@BernardQuintin_) December 18, 2025
This latest decision comes just days after a deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach that left 15 dead and at least 40 injured, amid ongoing concerns about threats to Jewish communities worldwide.
On Monday, the Antwerp branch of the far-right political party Vlaams Belang had called for increased protection for Jewish schools and institutions during a city council meeting, Belgian media reported.
The government had originally rejected calls to bolster security, planning instead to withdraw the federal deployment, a move that sparked outrage from city leaders and renewed concern within the Jewish community amid ongoing threats.
Addressing these concerns, Quintin stressed that protecting Jewish sites is a top priority for the government, but emphasized that the federal police presence in Antwerp is not intended as a permanent solution, with local police responsible for maintaining security on the ground.
Antwerp Mayor Els van Doesburg had condemned the government’s earlier decision as “incomprehensible,” warning that the city cannot risk a security gap, especially in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack on Sunday.
“There must be no vacuum in the safety of Antwerp’s Jewish quarter,” Doesburg told Belgian media. “This is something we have to do together. It goes beyond the Antwerp police.”
Since the deadly attack at Brussels’ Jewish Museum in 2014, security measures have been strengthened, with Belgian intelligence consistently warning of elevated threats to Jewish sites.
In response, Antwerp has long maintained a mixed model in which local and federal police share responsibility for their protection.
The federal government has now proposed an alternative plan to deploy military personnel at Jewish community sites in Antwerp to support local police and increase capacity, though a government-wide consensus has yet to be reached.
Jewish community leaders had previously sharply criticized proposals to reduce security, dismissing Quintin’s explanation and denouncing it as a “political decision.”
Ralph Pais, deputy chair of the Jewish Information and Documentation Center (JID), a Belgian nonprofit that combats antisemitism, noted that the planned withdrawal, both in its timing and execution, had heightened concern within the community.
Despite the community’s expectation that authorities would address the issue, Pais had warned that inadequate security could lead to serious problems.
Dus geen 48 uur na de verschrikkelijke aanslag op joden in Australië zet nota bene onze minister van Binnenlandse Zaken @BernardQuintin_ de federale politiebeveiliging in @Stad_Antwerpen stop!
Burgemeester @elsvandoesburg vindt het uiteraard…
— JID (@s_antisemitisme) December 16, 2025
Van Doesburg had called for federal officers to remain in place until a suitable replacement could be established, whether through increased local police staffing or the deployment of military personnel — a request now addressed by the government’s decision to maintain current measures.
The European Jewish Association (EJA) said in a statement that it “welcomed” the move to maintain current federal police levels in Antwerp, noting that the initial plan “caused deep concern within the Jewish community and beyond.”
“This decision follows direct engagement with elected officials and Jewish representatives and sends an important message: the safety of Jewish life is a core responsibility of the state and cannot be subject to uncertainty or gradual erosion,” the EJA said. “The EJA wishes to express its sincere appreciation to [Quintin] for listening carefully to these concerns and for acting decisively to prevent any security vacuum. We also commend MP Michael Freilich, who raised the issue forcefully in Parliament.”
Uncategorized
NFL star apologizes for antisemitic hand gesture on controversial livestream
An NFL star has apologized for an antisemitic gesture he mimicked on a livestream earlier this week.
Puka Nacua, a third-year wide receiver who plays for the Los Angeles Rams, made the gesture after he was encouraged to on Tuesday by controversial livestreamer Adin Ross. Ross, who is Jewish, suggested Nacua incorporate the gesture into his touchdown celebration.
On Thursday, after the gesture was widely condemned online and drew responses from the NFL and the Rams, Nacua released a statement.
“When I appeared the other day on a social media livestream, it was suggested to me to perform a specific movement as part of my next touchdown celebration,” reads the statement, which featured the branding of Stand Up To Jewish Hate, an organization founded by Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. “At the time, I had no idea this act was antisemitic in nature and perpetuated harmful stereotypes against Jewish people.
“I deeply apologize to anyone who was offended by my actions as I do not stand for any form of racism, bigotry or hate of another group of people.”
The gesture — lowering the head into the shoulders while rubbing a hand over a fist — is sometimes known as the “Covetous Jew.”
Neither the Rams nor the NFL said if Nacua would face consequences for the incident in separate statements Thursday.
“The NFL strongly condemns all forms of discrimination and derogatory behavior directed towards any group or individual,” the league said in a statement Thursday. “The continuing rise of antisemitism must be addressed across the world, and the NFL will continue to stand with our partners in this fight. Hatred has no place in our sport or society.”
The Rams wrote, “There is no place in this world for Antisemitism as well as other forms of prejudice or hostility towards the Jewish people and people of any religion, ethnicity, or race.”
Nacua, who finished second in 2023 voting for NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year, received backlash over several statements he made during the livestream. He accused referees of bias and making calls for clout, saying “These guys are lawyers. They want to be on TV, too.” He also claimed that “concussions are all in your head, you just can’t think about it.”
Controversy is more familiar territory for Ross, who was banned from the streaming platform Twitch for more than two years due to his failure to moderate the torrent of racist and antisemitic comments in his stream’s live chat. He has hosted avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes several times on his stream; according to SBNation’s James Dator, “Ross has a reputation for allowing antisemitism on his show, often done under the guise of ‘joking.’”
The post NFL star apologizes for antisemitic hand gesture on controversial livestream appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US Senate Passes Intel Bill With Key Measures Targeting Iran
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson
The US Senate has passed the Intelligence Authorization Act, annual legislation that authorizes funding and sets policy for the intelligence community, with key measures targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities and other threats to American national security.
The bill, which received bipartisan support, includes measures such as “prohibiting the intelligence community from contracting with Chinese military companies, improving the security of CIA installations, identifying the threat to America’s food security posed by communist China, and directing necessary resources towards defending our nation from threats posed by Iran,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement on Wednesday.
The legislation is part of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets defense policy and authorizes funding levels. Lawmakers in the Senate passed the NDAA on Wednesday after their counterparts in the House did so last week.
“I’m glad this bill passed both houses of Congress as part of the NDAA and I look forward to it being signed into law by the president,” Cotton said.
Regarding intelligence, the bill includes measures aimed at suppressing Tehran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. The legislation expands congressional oversight of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and any efforts toward weapons development.
The bill also formally enshrines limits on the movement of Iranian diplomats on American soil, aligning them with existing limits already applied to diplomats from China, Russia, and North Korea. It also allocates additional resources to bolster US defenses against a range of Iranian threats, including proxy terrorist groups and potential assassination schemes against American citizens. The legislation furhter requires intelligence agencies with knowledge of Iranian lethal threats to report all information to the FBI and to the intended target.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, touted the bill’s bolstering of resources to intelligence agencies.
“I thank my colleagues and am glad to see this bill pass once again on a strong bipartisan basis. It provides the intelligence community the resources it needs to do its mission while ensuring that we maintain rigorous oversight of the [intelligence committee’s] activities,” Warner said in a statement.
Since returning to the White House in January, the Trump administration has ramped up US sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, human rights abuses, and support for terrorist groups across the Middle East and around the world. During Trump’s first term, the US withdrew from a 2015 deal with Iran that placed temporary restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions, arguing it was too weak and would undermine American interests.
In response, Iran has gone to extensive lengths to obscure its nuclear activity and evade accountability from the international community, according to international nuclear watchdogs. Nonetheless, Iran has continued to claim that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons.
The UK, France, and Germany said earlier this year there was no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, including the enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade levels, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
In September, US Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced the Strengthening Entry Visa Enforcement and Restrictions (SEVER) Act, which would prohibit members of Iran’s government, particularly those sanctioned for supporting the regime, from receiving US visas. The US has also placed severe sanctions on Iran’s oil exports.
In June, the US bombed three key Iranian nuclear sites during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. The US had previously tried to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Tehran, to no avail.